The Holy Scripture - english version B.indd - Sabbat

Pre-Reformation Interpreters.3213. The Fathers held the historic interpretation of the Apocalypse. As Elliottsays, none of the Fathers „entertained the idea of the apocalyptic prophecyoverleaping the chronological interval, were it less or greater, antecedent to theconsummation, and plunging at once into the times of the consummation.“ (Elliott:„Horæ Apocalypticæ,“ vol. iv., p. 299, 4th ed.) Here, for example, is the commentaryof Victorinus on the Apocalypse of John, written towards the end of the thirdcentury. This is the earliest commentary extant on the Apocalypse as a whole.In this, the going forth of the white horse under the first seal is interpretedof the victories of the gospel in the first century. This view, you will observe,involves the historical interpretation of the entire book of Revelation.Victorinus interprets the woman clothed with the sun, having the moon under herfeet, and wearing a crown of twelve stars on her hand, and travailing in her pains,as „the ancient Church of fathers, prophets, saints, and apostles“; in other words,the Judæo-Christian body of saints. He could not, of course, point to fulfilmentswhich were at his early date still future, but he recognises the principle.4. The Fathers held that the little horn of Daniel, the man of sin foretold byPaul, and the revived head of the Roman empire predicted by John, representone and the same power; and they held that power to be the antichrist. Forexample, Origen, in his famous book, „Against Celsus,“ thus expresses himself(bk. vi., chap. xlvi.). After quoting nearly the whole of Paul‘s prophecy about the manof sin in 2 Thessalonians, which he interprets of the antichrist, he says: „SinceCelsus rejects the statements concerning antichrist, as it is termed, havingneither read what is said of him in the book of Daniel, nor in the writings ofPaul, nor what the Saviour in the gospels has predicted about his coming, wemust make a few remarks on this subject. ... Paul speaks of him who is calledantichrist, describing, though with a certain reserve, both the manner and timeand cause of his coming. ...The prophecy also regarding antichrist is stated in thebook of Daniel, and is fitted to make an intelligent and candid reader admire thewords as truly Divine and prophetic; for in them are mentioned the things relatingto the coming kingdom, beginning with the time of Daniel, and continuing to thedestruction of the world.“Jerome, in his commentary on the book of Daniel (chap. vii.), says, withreference to the little horn which has a mouth speaking great things, that „itis the man of sin, the son of perdition, who dares to sit in the temple of God,making himself as God.“ („Est enim homo peccati, filius perditionis, ita ut in templo Deisedere audeat, faciens se quasi Deum.“)5. The Fathers held that the Roman empire was the „let,“ or hindrance,reffered to by Paul in 2 Thessalonians, which kept back the manifestation ofthe „man of sin.“ This point is of great importance. Paul distinctly tells us thathe knew, and that the Thessalonians knew, what that hindrance was, and that itwas then in existence. The early Church, through the writings of the Fathers, tellsuns what it knew upon the subject, and with remarkable unanimity affirms thatthis „let,“ or hindrance, was the Roman empire as governed by theCaesars; that while the Caesars held imperial power, it was impossiblefor the predicted antichrist to arise, and that on the fall of theCaesars he would arise. Here we have a point on which Paul affirms the existence